Battlecry: Christian kids have lost it

[Hobbit]

And generalizations are garbage when they're disproven, hence your hating anecdotal evidence.

See, here is where you accuse a 'trend' for a 'law.' Now, for a minute, I'm going to assume that you learned everything you know from a government school, in which case you might not know the difference. From this post on out, you will no longer have any excuse for failing to make this distinction.

First off, there is a scientific law, which you seem to think you are describing here. Laws are absolutes used to illustrate the inner workings of the very universe. If they are not always true, then the phenomenon that they describe must have another explanation. For an example, we have gravity. The law of gravity states that any two bodies of mass, if free to move, will accelerate towards each other at a rate directly proportional to the mass of the objects and inversely proportional to the distance between them. Gravity works on Earth as we're pretty big and the Earth's pretty close. If we ever find two bodies of mass that are free to move, but do not accelerate towards each other, the law will have been disproven. Since two bodies have been found to not accelerate towards each other, some other phenomenon must be causing all other bodies we have observed in the past to move in such a way and more investigations are needed.

Then, there's the trend, what we are describing. To show a trend, you first get an experimental sample size. In this case, it's gay couples. The sample must be very large and widespread to rule out local phenomenon (you can't take an election poll using only staff on the NYT, as the local phenomenon of rabid liberalism will skew the results). You then find how many in this sample follow the trend you are observing. Then comes the control group, a sample that doesn't exhibit the characteristics you are testing. In this case, it's straight couples. You the test the control group against the same criteria. If the experimental group differs from the control group more than 50% of the time, you have a trend (more than 95% and you have a scientific proof). Yes, there are some elements in the experimental group that do not differ from the control group, but as long as they are outnumbered by elements that do differ, the trend is still valid.

In order to disprove a trend, you cannot use small numbers of anecdotal evidence. My friend Amira turned out to be a well-reserved woman who has maintained her chastity thus far, despite her father leaving when she was young. There is still a trend among girls without fathers of promiscuity. The fact that she does not follow this trend only proves that she was too smart, determined, and self-confident to fall into the pits most of the other, similar girls do.

If you really want to disprove this trend, you must first take a sample of gay couples at least as big as those used in the statistics we quote (probably around 10,000) and find a credible way to gather the data we discussed. These couples must be chosen at random and from many different geographical and cultural backgrounds. If the majority of them do not exhibit the traits we have cited, then you have created evidence that there isn't actually a trend. With a sample size of what, two, and both from the same area and culture, you have disproven nothing but the idea that you know what a trend is.

 

[Redhots]

Are you really equating female circumcision with school prayer?!?

No, i'm not.

I was pointing out the dangers of using religion as a justification for any public policy because ultimately what you have to fall back on is "Because my God(s) said so" and that line has been used throughout history to justify all kinds of horrors.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No, i'm not.

I was pointing out the dangers of using religion as a justification for any public policy because ultimately what you have to fall back on is "Because my God(s) said so" and that line has been used throughout history to justify all kinds of horrors.

And it's also been the basis of any civilized society.

Secular humanism appears to only tear down christian based societies, but yet offers no other moral framework on which to base society, unless you consider totalitarianism a moral framework.

 

[Nienna]

And it's also been the basis of any civilized society.

Secular humanism appears to only tear down christian based societies, but yet offers no other moral framework on which to base society, unless you consider totalitarianism a moral framework.

Good response, J.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Good response, J.

Thanks, J.

 

[acludem]

What about Chinese Society? It's existed for thousands of years with no "God". It's not "Christian-based". Are they immoral? Chinese communism, btw, has always had to work within the confines of the old Chinese culture.

acludem

 

[Nienna]

Thanks, J.

You're welcome, J.

 

[Nienna]

All this would do is force someone to commit a divorceable offense to achieve their goal...it might even cause someone not normally abusive to become so to qualify for a divorce. If two people reach a mutual agreement that they can't live together anymore, then dissolve the marriage. The idea should be to establish and maintain good marriages, not every marriage.

OR... it might "force" someone to change his goal.

I read a study about couples in trouble. Some stuck it out, some divorced. Five years later, most of the ones who stuck it out were very glad they had. Of those that divorced, many regretted it, while others were ambivalent. Very few were glad they divorced.

You can't seriously be blaming the conduct of heterosexuals on the conduct of homosexuals...people are responsible for their own conduct. Besides, I argued that gay marriage would reduce the carousing in the gay population, it would take a leap of illogic to deduce that gay marriage would have any effect at all on hetero-carousing.

"Blaming" is a very strong word. I am saying that when homosexual marriage is legalized in a country, it changes the very meaning of marriage. That, as a trend, people take marriage less seriously, are less likely to marry, and less likely to stay married once they do.

Still reading through your article...

The accusation is that gay marriage will cause the ruin of hetero-sexual marriages...the question IS relevant. If you can't explain how it would affect YOUR marriage, then logic dictates that it won't affect ANY marriage.

That is not logical. My marriage is not the only marriage, nor is it even in line with the current trend in marital relationships. I and my husband are both each others' first spouses. All our children belong to both of us, biologically. We have been married going on 11 years with no likelihood of divorce at this point. My husband is the breadwinner, and I stay at home. This traditional set-up is not very common these days, and one anecdote does not necesssarily represent an effect on the entire culture.

In speaking of changing trends, one doesn't look at current demographics; one looks at a societal change, and then studies the demographics that take place AFTER the change. In order to see how legalizing homosexual marriage affects society, one would have to observe marriage and/or divorce rates of marriages that began after the societal change.

I will look into more info about the Dutch situation.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What about Chinese Society? It's existed for thousands of years with no "God". It's not "Christian-based". Are they immoral? Chinese communism, btw, has always had to work within the confines of the old Chinese culture.

acludem

But it has had moral codes, based on buddhism, confucianism. I'm not saying there are only christian societies, but there has alway been some sort of religious or quazireligious code to govern human interactions in any society. In china, they've also been very close to totalitarian for a long time, emperors and all that.

 

[acludem]

Most totalitarian cultures, especially before the 20th century were based on religion. Monarchs ruled by "divine right of kings". They had been chosen by God to rule in his name on earth. "Morals" were strictly enforced in many of these cultures. Iran is a nation based on religion. What about them?

Society doesn't need religion to function properly.

Some of the most religious people I've known are the most immoral, some of the least religious people I've known are the most moral. Religion doesn't equal morality and morality equal religion.

acludem

 

[Nienna]

Most totalitarian cultures, especially before the 20th century were based on religion. Monarchs ruled by "divine right of kings". They had been chosen by God to rule in his name on earth. "Morals" were strictly enforced in many of these cultures. Iran is a nation based on religion. What about them?

Society doesn't need religion to function properly.

But it sure helps!

Some of the most religious people I've known are the most immoral, some of the least religious people I've known are the most moral. Religion doesn't equal morality and morality equal religion.

Upon what do you base the definition of "morality"?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Most totalitarian cultures, especially before the 20th century were based on religion. Monarchs ruled by "divine right of kings". They had been chosen by God to rule in his name on earth. "Morals" were strictly enforced in many of these cultures. Iran is a nation based on religion. What about them?

Society doesn't need religion to function properly.

Some of the most religious people I've known are the most immoral, some of the least religious people I've known are the most moral. Religion doesn't equal morality and morality equal religion.

acludem

What society has ever functioned without religion?

 

[Hobbit]

What society has ever functioned without religion?

Stalinism and Naziism.

 

[Redhots]

Stalinism and Naziism.

You're wrong about the Nazis. Hitler was (claimed to be) a christian and he hated the godless commies in Russia.

 

[Hobbit]

You're wrong about the Nazis. Hitler was (claimed to be) a christian and he hated the godless commies in Russia.

But his entire moral code was rooted in Darwinian eugenics. He claimed Christianity merely for the political reasons of garnering the support of the largely Christian Germany and demonizing the commies. The 'final solution' and the Aryan race were both results in his belief only in the pursuit of the purity of the human race.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Stalinism and Naziism.

If you consider breadlines and genocide "functioning"....

 

[acludem]

Darwin would never have advocated genocide. He was not an anti-semite or a racist. He would've argued that if Jews were, in fact, inferior that they would naturally be selected to die out. Natural selection and genocide are hardly the same thing.

Chinese culture has existed for several thousand years without religion. It existed before Buddha and before Confucius. Confucianism, btw, is not a religion so much as a philosophy. There is no deity (there isn't a diety in Buddhism, per se, either). Confucius' teachings are very important in Chinese culture, but the Chinese do not "worship" Confucius.

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

Darwin would never have advocated genocide. He was not an anti-semite or a racist. He would've argued that if Jews were, in fact, inferior that they would naturally be selected to die out. Natural selection and genocide are hardly the same thing.

Chinese culture has existed for several thousand years without religion. It existed before Buddha and before Confucius. Confucianism, btw, is not a religion so much as a philosophy. There is no deity (there isn't a diety in Buddhism, per se, either). Confucius' teachings are very important in Chinese culture, but the Chinese do not "worship" Confucius.

acludem

No, Darwin didn't advocate genocide, but it can be considered a natural extension of Darwinism. If man is no different than any other animal, then what's the harm of selectively breeding the populace and culling the inferior, as one would do when attempting to breed champion dogs or horses? It just speeds up the process. Apparantly, all of those people were dragging the rest of the population down, and the proponents of the Holocaust believed it was for the good of the human species as a whole.

There are religions predating Confucionism and Buddhism in China. Before that, it used to be mainly shamanism and ancestor worship, which is still a supernatural moral base.

If man is no better than another animal, then most of the moral code falls to pieces. Just follow your instincts. If you want to do it, it's because eons of natural selection resulted in that instinct. Go ahead and do it. If it's beneficial to you, then you'll pass your genes on. If it kills you, then it's better for the species. You wanna have meaningless sex with a bunch of girls? Go ahead, STDs are just another form of natural selection. A bunch of men? Sure, if it wasn't somehow beneficial, the 'gay gene' would have been culled long ago. Human eugenics, infanticide of children with birth defects, and euthenasia of the handicapped all become morally acceptable once you believe that the human soul is just another outgrowth of natural selection and that man is really isn't any more relevant than a stalk of corn.

 

[Redhots]

If man is no different than any other animal, then what's the harm of selectively breeding the populace and culling the inferior, as one would do when attempting to breed champion dogs or horses?

If you think man is no different than any other animal (a belief which has nothing to do with the origin of species) then none I supose (just don't be surprised if you face some opposition), but this process would have nothing to do with natural selection, infact what you've described is artificial selection.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If you think man is no different than any other animal (a belief which has nothing to do with the origin of species) then none I supose (just don't be surprised if you face some opposition), but this process would have nothing to do with natural selection, infact what you've described is artificial selection.

But when you destroy moral systems by destroying religions (I know some religions are more like philosophies, so spare me on that) the elite and powerful see no problem in engaging in programs like artificial selection. In fact, the New Age, morally-neutral program they're devising now is being devised for this very purpose, so people will accept their horrific programs. Say no to new age satanism.